medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: Erik Drigsdahl <[log in to unmask]>
> Another fake by the same 'consortium' for sale today en Ebay:
> A leaf from an Antiphoner claiming to be the feast 'In inventione Sci
Stephani prothomartiris'
> Search Ebay item=200266810815
> Direct url to German eBay:
>
http://cgi.ebay.de/ANTIPHONAR-IMPERIALFOLIO-PERGAMENT-MINIATUR-1400-8_W0QQitemZ200266810815QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAntiquarische_B%C3%BCcher?hash=item200266810815&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2%7C65%3A1%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318
> The large initial E has been almost entirely re-painted by a forger,
i assume you mean the "illuminated" S, which does look like it could have
begun its life as an "E" (white on blue).
though only the S makes sense in the text ("Sederunt" as i read it), does it
not.
why not just a mistake by the original "rubricator" (who, i believe, would
have worked after the text proper was complete), who got his signals crossed
an did an "E" where he should have done an "S"?
the Stephen (if that's who it is) was, perhaps, the same guy who did the
mistaken "E," or perhaps not.
not all that competent of an ymagier, in any event.
> The Introitus to the Mass should read:
having no knowledge whatever of what should be there, i'll accept your
analysis of the mistakes.
and only ask, could they be "original"?
> The miserable miniature of St. Stephen
http://www.neumann-walter.de/NW/November2007/27.11.07/35.jpg
>is ridiculous,
that's one way of describing it.
"inept" --or something along those lines-- would be my choice of words.
stylistically, while marginally competent in his envisioning and execution, i
see nothing inconsistent with a ("circa 1400") medieval painting there.
and much which is consistent with, at least, *some* medieval style(s).
>especially with a large S behind him in red fat paint,
yes, someone --at some time-- has reworked the initial, changing a
pre-existing E to an S.
>partly covering what is left of the original capital E (which of course not
had a miniature).
as above.
clearly an "S" replacing an "E" --but the date of that replacement is not at
all clear.
> The gold in the corners is freshly painted,
if you say so, but it doesn't look all that fresh to me.
though gold is notoriously un-tarnishable and, therefore, hard to date.
it is *cracked* (i.e., "checked" or "crazed"), however.
but that could have been done yesterday.
>and our 'artist' does not know that Stephen should have a stone in his hand
and not just hold a book.
he does seem to be holding something else, just below the book.
but Stephen as a tonsured cleric does suggest a certain anachronistic approach
to pseudo-history.
> Do I need to elaborate further?
your remarks about the textual problems --coming, as they do, from an expert--
would be dispositive for me.
but the ones about the "illumination" won't fly, art historically.
is it your contention that the *whole* page is a "forgery"?
c
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|